Let’s end the ability of Bangladeshi elders to deliver bloc votes: A report from the Electoral Commission

Let’s stress at the outset that the timing of the Electoral Commission’s decision to publish its report on vote fraud three days ago, given the Tower Hamlets election trial is due to start on Monday, was purely coincidental.

But because it honed in on the issue of potential fraud in British Bangladeshi communities, it made for particularly interesting reading.

Here’s the press release issued by the Commission:

The Electoral Commission has today laid out what is being done to prevent electoral fraud ahead of the May elections, including work by Returning Officers, the police and Crimestoppers.

The watchdog has also published two research reports – by NatCen and academics at the universities of Manchester and Liverpool – and a briefing paper on electoral fraud, fulfilling a commitment it made as part of its review of electoral fraud last year.

During this review the Commission heard anecdotal evidence and views that raised questions about whether fraud was more likely to be committed by, or in support of, candidates standing for election in areas which are largely or predominantly populated by people from British Pakistani or British Bangladeshi communities.

This raised concerns about whether people in these communities were able effectively to exercise their right to vote and participate in elections on the same basis as other voters in the UK. As a result, the watchdog commissioned further research with members of the public and political activists in eight demographically similar areas; four with histories of allegations or actual instances of fraud and four without.

Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission, said: “Proven cases of electoral fraud remain rare, but it is important that no-one underestimates how serious it is when it does occur. We have long known that, when fraud is committed, candidates and campaigners are the most likely offenders and voters are the victims. The research we have published today confirms this.

“The research also provides a useful insight into some of the particular issues faced by voters in some British Pakistani and British Bangladeshi communities, and how these can be tackled. Although clear plans are in place to prevent and detect fraud ahead of the elections, there is also a challenge to campaigners. They must ensure their behaviour builds trust with all voters, and all those involved in elections must make it a priority to communicate what is and what is not acceptable behaviour at election time.

“As we approach the election, it’s important that anyone who has evidence of electoral fraud reports it to the police in their area, or, if they want to do so anonymously, contact Crimestoppers.”

What the research shows

A summary of the research findings is below, but further details are available in the briefing note or in the reports themselves.

Strong community networks provide valuable support to people, but they may also be vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous campaigners.

There can be low levels of public awareness about what is acceptable campaigning activity and what is electoral fraud.

Voters in some British Pakistani and British Bangladeshi communities can be unsure where to report concerns about electoral fraud.

Low levels of literacy or a lack of English skills can exacerbate electoral fraud vulnerabilities.

Reduced activity by political parties in some areas, together with a reliance on kinship networks or those perceived to be “community leaders”, may also exacerbate vulnerabilities by focusing on winning the support of voters as a single group rather than as individuals.

The Commission has also set out today how it is working with the police and local authorities to support their plans to prevent and detect fraud ahead of the May elections. Further details of these actions can be found in the attached briefing note.

Action ahead of the May 2015 elections

The Commission, Police, Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers have different roles in relation to electoral fraud but are working together to ensure robust prevention and detection plans are in place ahead of the May elections. This package of measures includes:

Partnership with Crimestoppers – The Commission is working with Crimestoppers to make sure that, although the police should be the first point of contact to ensure concerns about electoral fraud are swiftly investigated, if people are worried about revealing their identity, they can contact Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. A translation service is available for those whose first language is not English.

A national seminar for specialist police officers – the Commission will join specialist police officers in February to help them prepare ahead of the elections, and exchange knowledge and strategies.

Materials for police and local authorities – The Commission is making these available in a variety of languages for police and local authorities to use to let voters know what electoral fraud is, how to report it, and what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable campaigning.

Monitoring postal voting during and after the May 2015 elections, to identify whether there is scope to further improve security processes.

Longer term work

Some issues raised in the research are already being looked at by the Commission:

Voter ID –We recommended in January 2014 that there should be a requirement for electors across Great Britain to present an acceptable form of identification prior to voting at the polling station by no later than the 2019 European and English local government elections. We are currently considering how to develop a proportionate and accessible scheme for verifying the identity of electors at polling stations, and expect to publish our detailed proposals by the end of 2015.

Postal voting – New security measures for postal voting were introduced for elections in 2006, and voters now need to give ‘personal identifiers’ (their signature and date of birth) when applying for and casting their postal ballot. In addition, the introduction of individual electoral registration (IER) in Great Britain in 2014 further limits the scope for fraud in the postal voting process. Under the new system voters need to have their identity verified by providing a date of birth and a national insurance number. IER therefore makes it much harder to create fictitious electoral register entries, which could be used to commit postal voting fraud. The Commission is continuing to monitor campaigner behaviour and has not ruled out the need for the law to be changed to make it an offence for campaigners to handle any postal voting materials.

But this press release omits many other solutions proposed by the academics. Let’s hope they’re won’t be ignored.

It’s not clear whether Tower Hamlets was one, although it’d be surprising if it wasn’t.

One of the main issues they found was the existence of influential kinship networks that can help deliver what some call bloc votes, ie ” male elders” calling the shots, telling family members how to vote. In essence, the researchers blamed political parties and activists for exploiting these rather than placing too much fault on the voters themselves.

They also said these closed networks often result in the selection of poor political candidates, ie the elders choose puppets in their circles who then get the bloc vote.

“These networks tend to be…hierarchal and patriarchal, which may undermine the principle of voters’ individual and free choice through a range of social pressures such as respect for the decision of elders at its mildews extreme, through to undue influence where in some instances access to individual ballots of women and adult children can be refused by elders,” the academics note.

The report is 55 pages long, but its executive summary and its conclusions are particularly interesting.

Although Jenny Watson, the chair of the Electoral Commission, says in her quotes above that proven cases of fraud are rare, the academics suggested the actual level of fraud might well be under-reported – in part because those defrauded may not know they have been.

They write: “In some areas where fraud allegations have not been raised, the local activists do not feel they receive enough support to combat fraud, especially from the police and local political parties.”

However, they suggest there is hope. They think the elders through generational change will lose their influence and that younger people are “reported to be resisting the influence of their kinship networks”.

Fast forward to p44 of the academics’ report here and you see a raft of proposed solutions.

For example, on voter registartion (which applies all voters of course):

..our first recommendation is for a system of automatic voter registration (or at least an opt-out system) where at point of contact with NHS, and/or any government service, the individual is prompted to register/asked to opt out.

And there are others which didn’t merit a mention in the Electoral Commission press release, and which may or may not have relevance to Tower Hamlets and the impending trial next week. I’ve italicised those I found more interesting.

Stricter and more transparent guidelines to political parties and candidates on postal vote handling as the Electoral Commission has already proposed

The information whether a person has a postal vote should be included in the secrecy of voting – ie activists and parties should not be allowed to collect this information;

Tightening the rules on voting at polling stations by increasing the radius safe from political pressure, enforcing the law already specifying that the tellers must not be present in the polling station.

Introducing some form of identification to cast a vote.

To compensate for the increased difficulty of voting, new registration laws should be introduced to either automatically enrol voters, for example via other points of contact with the state, or create an opt-out system.

Given the weakness of parties as inclusive agents for political participation, the government and local government must fund more direct voter information, registration and turnout efforts at the individual voters in these communities.

Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers should receive greater and ring-fenced funding in areas where additional needs are present to deal with severe under-registration, lack of knowledge of eligibility or poor English language skills.

The academics hope the following cultural changes should take place:

Political parties should take a greater responsibility for not accepting the bloc vote delivered or promised by community leaders

Political parties should aim to strengthen their support for diversity of elected representatives. Widening access to standing for elected office to all minority groups, regardless of whether the candidate’s ethnicity matches those of voters, should be one of the parties’ main objectives.

Both parties and communities should strongly encourage women of all ethnicities to participate more in politics, including making this participation easier for women and more relevant to their daily lives.

I suspect Richard Mawrey QC, who is due to preside over the Election Court at the Royal Courts of Justice from Monday, will have read this report with some interest.

Like this:

35 Responses

So we are to have expensive, slow ID checks for the 95% of polling places where there is no fraud? This is pretty typical of the response to the abuse of the system that has prevailed in some places ever since the Labour Party’s dominance was challenged – whether by another mainstream party or by the ethno-politics of Respect and ‘independents’ like the Tower Hamlets mayor.

Presiding officers already have the power to request identification – they never use this power.

Police already have the power to control the numbers gathering close to a polling place – they never use this power

Presiding officers already have the power to control numbers of tellers (one per party is recommended) and to ensure they don’t interfere with the voting process – the seldon use this power

Postal voting is routinely abused because there are few verifiable checks – there is also little value to have the system as it is currently designed. A return to the situation pre-2001 would resolve nearly all the problems and not prevent people voting

What makes me angry is that we treat the voters in my ward as suspect (when they aren’t) because politicians in Manningham or Brick Lane might be corrupt. What the EC research shows is that there is a problem and that it is concentrated in a small number of inner city areas. We should deal with the abude at that local level – a starting point would be removing Electoral Registration and Returning Officer roles from authorities such as Tower Hamlets and Bradford where they has been insufficient effort to combat election fraud, intimidation and abuse.

I agree. Postal voting is far too open to fraud. In problem areas such as Tower Hamlets, where electoral fraud has been rife for years, extra measures should be taken.

I personally have witnessed the disgusting, intimidating and clearly fraudulent activities in polling stations in Tower Hamlets for years. If we had the balls to act, without fear of being labelled prejudiced, perhaps we could’ve avoided letting Loony Lutfur and his clique of crooks and hypocrites into office in the first place.

It is a shame that both the authors of the report, as well as the owner of this blog, fall into what is criticised in the report – this concept of using a ‘bloc’.

I cannot say no one ever walks into a polling booth and thinks, ‘my husband told me to vote X, so that is what I better do.’ But I bet it is few who do that.

I would imagine some others might think, ‘my husband or wife knows more about this than I do, so I will vote as they suggest.’ That is not ideal but then who hasn’t bought a washing machine or takeaway on the recommendation of someone who knows more about the product than you do.

However, the idea that, because they are ‘Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin’ (why don’t they just be open in their bigotry and say ‘Muslim’. I see Sikhs, for example, are not a focus.), you get for more situations of an Abdul walking to the polling station and voting X because Ibrahim Uncle told him he must, even though he prefers Y.

It all fits into this phantom that blogs like this help promote. Muslim communities (although there are no such thing, as there aren’t white communities) are run by fanatics who keep the rest, especially women and children, under complete subjugation.

Certainly, voting abuse does happens. Postal votes are open to abuse and I know directly of them being abused – the votes of elderly white residents, maybe with dementia, being stolen by the white (as it happens) candidates of mainstream parties though their links with nursing homes. I don’t though extrapolate from this that voting abuse is widespread in this, er, community

But considering there are fair more elderly white people than Asians in the country you would expect Electoral Commission might focus on group like that first. But no. The whole focus is a racist one.

You allow and enable voter fraud to exist because you do not speak up.

With rights come responsibilities. Those who bully or try to exploit others frequently flourish in any environment which does little to educate ALL its citizens about their rights and responsibilities.

Let’s be very clear that it should be considered to be every citizen’s duty – irrespective of their culture, ethnicity or religion – to speak up if they know electoral offences are being committed.

To my mind both ‘The Electoral Commission’ and local Electoral Registration Officers have focused:
* too much on the administration of elections
* too little on raising the awareness of electors as to the rights and responsibilities of individuals in relation to voting and
* too little on enabling people to report problems about electoral bullying and fraudsters in ways which are not intimidating.

I’d like to see both the Electoral Commission and the Police focus on finding a way of enabling people to provide witness statements about facts about behaviour they have seen or heard relating to voter fraud without feeling intimidated about the potential for any repercussions.

A “whistleblowing charter” for electors if you like. Something along the lines of the equivalent of a “ChildLine” for those who are witnesses to or victims of electoral bullies. Let’s find out even more about the extent to which voter bullying actually exists.

With respect to votes from residential care and nursing homes, I would guess that it’s not that difficult to establish profiles for the numbers who are registered and those that vote relative to the population at large.

If an Electoral Registration Officer became aware that the profile for a home was polling at a rate which represented an extreme compared to a national average than he or she should be acting to investigate how this happened. Particularly with respect to homes where the majority of residents have dementia or similar illnesses.

Question: Can a person with dementia vote in the UK general and local elections.

Answer: Yes, a person with dementia can vote regardless of their capacity.
It is clearly stated in the Electoral Commission’s guidance for Electoral Registration Officers that mental health conditions do not constitute a legal incapacity to vote, so a person would not be stopped from voting at the polling station.

However, it is important to note that the guidelines also state that the decision as to whether and how to vote at an election must be made by the elector themselves, and not by a carer or a person making decisions on behalf of the elector.

That’s an important phrase which applies to ALL voters

“the decision as to whether and how to vote at an election must be made by the elector themselves, and not by a carer or a person making decisions on behalf of the elector.”

It’s not a few elders telling everyone what to do. It’s a consensus in the community. That is their culture. But these people approach the issue by imposing our culture on the question.
It would be better if there was less consensus because we want to see people think and act for themselves more.
They seem to be saying that old Bangladeshis are dishonest and young Bangladeshis are stupid. Here’s a hotline for people to report each other. That’s not a very good way of making the changes they say they would want. They should simply encourage people to think for themselves.

I also appreciate that the report is mainly about postal votes. If you look at the above Guardian article, you will see that it reports postal vote abuses in many different sorts of places (including the one I had knowledge about). These abuses should be tackled and that part of the EC report is universal.

But it is the ‘ethnic’ focus of the report that is more interesting. This mind-set that some Muslims (not e.g. Sikhs, Christians or the non-religious) are far more likely to indulge in dubious practices is well summed up in the ignorant remarks of Dan McCurry, “It’s a consensus in the community. That is their culture.”

Rubbish. There are probably few places on earth that have hartals (strike plus) or other such manifestations of a divided society as Bangladesh.

There is no community, only workers and bosses, like every other ‘community’.

Southpaw, I haven’t accused any community of operating dubious practice. Much the opposite. I said that the Bangladeshis tend to form a consensus on things. This contradicts the authors of the report.
You should avoid putting words in other people’s mouths while hiding behind anonymity. People will take your comments far less seriously.

Dave Roberts, Marc doesn’t do online stuff, and he wouldn’t slag me off if he did.

The Gilligan article is certainly interesting but I think he is a terrible journalist – see my earlier demolition of the rubbish he wrote about a polling station being inaccessible, supposedly on some island in the middle of some road junction, which is false.

OK – must be Cllr Marc (sorry not ‘Arc;) Francis, if you really think I’m a LBTH Lab cllr, based on what I write, I am surprised you actually have the cognitive ability to type or spell or even breath.

Southpawpunch, you might be interested to know that the polling station on the Westferry Circus roundabout is being moved to a much more accessible location in the East Wintergarden in the Canary Wharf estate for the next election. So I think Gilligans description of it as ‘placed on a traffic island in the middle of a four-lane road’ was a not in-accurate description (I stood outside that station for a large part of the day). The fact that the polling station had the lowest turnout of any in Tower Hamlets tends to confirm its inappropriate location.

Thanks for doing this. V helpful. Dying to get down there. Apparently there was some fascinating stuff yesterday in Biggs’ testimony about alleged discussions and alleged deals offered/discussed by Lutfur in 2010. Will get transcript.

By the way, Does anyone think the proximity of the mosque to the new town hall had and bearing on the decision behind its purchase?Or am I just a cynic…. It’s amazing what a few years under Lutfur can do to you, no offence Rania……

Comments are closed.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.